Pandora, really.

I have talked about this kind of service now for some time and to be honest things have not changed much since the first time several years ago.

First let talk about comparisons:

Who would Pandora be closest to???????? Hummm, thats right terrestrial radio. Lets get some of the differences out of the way first. Pandora has a larger MUSIC selection, when you get to listen to it. Thats because terrestrial is alot easyer to get then Pandora. Terrestrial has talk and sports, Pandora has none of that. Now we get to how are they the same. Well that is simple they are both mostly ad based services. That means you pay for it with your time. They both have many that listen to them (probably because they are both FREE).

Now that a case has been built that pandora is much more like terrestrial radio then satellite radio. What was it again that has happen to terrestrial lately???? Ho thats right, they are having trouble staying in business. Really that should have been put into the comparison portion of this Pandora thread. Why well because lets face it Pandora is STILL far from out of the woods and is still having trouble making its business model work with the high price of royalty fees (and those fee will only go up, NOT DOWN).

What I find most amazing is that the same people that said SIRI/XMSR/SIRIXM could not make it when competing against free terrestrial, are now saying a service which says its free (really only free if you dont mind paying for the other service you NEED TO HAVE to get it) is also going to put SIRIXM out of business. So I have to ask where are the articles from these same people that say, "look out Viacom, Pandora is going to put you out of business"???? Soooo let me get this logic correct; A service like Pandora that is as different from SIRIXM as SIRIXM is different to terrestrial, and that same service (Pandora) is alike in many more ways to terrestrial is going to put SIRIXM out of bussiness. So let me clarify this, they are going to skip right over terrestrial (its closest compeditor) and put SIRIXM out of business FIRST. Yea that makes alot of sense......NOT.

Here are the basic facts:

First of all Pandora actually cost MORE then SIRIXM. Yes thats right you heard me correct because how do you get Pandora????????? Ho thats right you need to have a cell service + (basically unlimited service WHICH WILL COST MORE), OR you have to have an internet service. Both services on there own will cost more then what you would pay for SIRIXM. I should not even have to mention that SIRIXM only cost 6.95/month for just its music channels (lets compare apples to apples here).

There will always be the problem of connectivity with Pandora for the foreseeable future. SIRIXM does not have that problem.

Internet royalty fees cost way more then SIRIXM pays for its satellite radio royalty fees. Trust me there is a reason you dont get a bunch of music channels on the internet. If I had to guess (not a fact, just my opinion here because it is very sensible) SIRIXM would like to stay as far from the internet as it possibly can. They have seen how the higher royalty fees for internet have made it hard to pay and still stay in business.

Pandora is like terrestrial EXCEPT the royalty fees are much higher for Pandora and SIRIXM has had no trouble competing with terrestrial so far.

Why well because lets face it Pandora is STILL far from out of the woods and is still having trouble making its business model work with the high price of royalty fees (and those fee will only go up, NOT DOWN).

There business model is profitable and their royalty fees are lower than Sirius XM's internet royalty fees. They will remain lower because if they are raised to the point where they can't be paid, no one wins. It behooves the RIAA to take just enough money to profit while allowing Pandora to grow more and more.

Just thought someone should point that out.

Originally Posted by john163888

What I find most amazing is that the same people that said SIRI/XMSR/SIRIXM could not make it when competing against free terrestrial, are now saying a service which says its free (really only free if you dont mind paying for the other service you NEED TO HAVE to get it) is also going to put SIRIXM out of business.

1. Pandora is much better than terrestrial radio. If given the choice I would chose Pandora every time.

2. That other service you NEED is typically already paid for. No one is buying internet just for Pandora, we have the internet and use music service as a bonus. I dont pay $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM online, I am already online and happen to use Sirius XM while there.

3. I think the only company to put Sirius XM out of business is Sirius XM themselves.

Originally Posted by john163888

Here are the basic facts:

First of all Pandora actually cost MORE then SIRIXM. Yes thats right you heard me correct because how do you get Pandora????????? Ho thats right you need to have a cell service + (basically unlimited service WHICH WILL COST MORE), OR you have to have an internet service. Both services on there own will cost more then what you would pay for SIRIXM. I should not even have to mention that SIRIXM only cost 6.95/month for just its music channels (lets compare apples to apples here).

This is misleading (as I noted above). I only listen to Sirius XM online so, by your logic, I am paying $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM but, that is simply not true.

Originally Posted by john163888

There will always be the problem of connectivity with Pandora for the foreseeable future. SIRIXM does not have that problem.

Sirius XM's service is spotty at times and their streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired. Although I agree mass adoption is a problem with Pandora, the same generation that loves and uses the product doesnt seem to have a problem accessing it.

Originally Posted by john163888

Pandora is like terrestrial EXCEPT the royalty fees are much higher for Pandora and SIRIXM has had no trouble competing with terrestrial so far.

Again, see above. Pandora's royalty fees are quite manageable and they got a sweetheart deal.

All of that said, I still listen to Sirius XM daily and do not listen to Pandora at all. (I prefer slacker on the rare off chance).

There business model is profitable and their royalty fees are lower than Sirius XM's internet royalty fees. They will remain lower because if they are raised to the point where they can't be paid, no one wins. It behooves the RIAA to take just enough money to profit while allowing Pandora to grow more and more.

Just thought someone should point that out.

1. Pandora is much better than terrestrial radio. If given the choice I would chose Pandora every time.

2. That other service you NEED is typically already paid for. No one is buying internet just for Pandora, we have the internet and use music service as a bonus. I dont pay $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM online, I am already online and happen to use Sirius XM while there.

3. I think the only company to put Sirius XM out of business is Sirius XM themselves.

This is misleading (as I noted above). I only listen to Sirius XM online so, by your logic, I am paying $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM but, that is simply not true.

Sirius XM's service is spotty at times and their streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired. Although I agree mass adoption is a problem with Pandora, the same generation that loves and uses the product doesnt seem to have a problem accessing it.

Again, see above. Pandora's royalty fees are quite manageable and they got a sweetheart deal.

All of that said, I still listen to Sirius XM daily and do not listen to Pandora at all. (I prefer slacker on the rare off chance).

Watch your step because it is a very slipper path you are going down and one I would recommend not even starting down in the first place.

I personally would link to those things you mentioned to back it up. Now while most things cannot be totally be proved out, I tend to use logic, common sense, and history to fill in the blanks where the facts cannot be found (also dont go to far off the reservation when making your conclusions).

So the point being, watch how you come to your conclusions. Hey you can be like me for instance, I use 4 things (facts, logic, common sense, and history) correctly, I have been proven to be correct MOST (not all) of the time.

Watch your step because it is a very slipper path you are going down and one I would recommend not even starting down in the first place.

I don't follow... what do you mean? What path?

Originally Posted by john163888

I personally would link to those things you mentioned to back it up. Now while most things cannot be totally be proved out, I tend to use logic, common sense, and history to fill in the blanks where the facts cannot be found (also dont go to far off the reservation when making your conclusions).

What part of what I said do you have a problem with? I will be happy to elaborate on any of the points I made.

You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
Or do you have a problem with their better royalty deal? It is better. That is also public knowledge.

I'm not looking for a debate. I didn't attack your post. I just wanted to toss out some points I thought may have been overlooked. People should get the whole picture. It's tough to be objective when you are invested in something so deeply. Whether monetarily or emotionally.

What part of what I said do you have a problem with? I will be happy to elaborate on any of the points I made.

You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
Or do you have a problem with their better royalty deal? It is better. That is also public knowledge.

I'm not looking for a debate. I didn't attack your post. I just wanted to toss out some points I thought may have been overlooked. People should get the whole picture. It's tough to be objective when you are invested in something so deeply. Whether monetarily or emotionally.

think about nabster, it charges 12.95 a month for downloads, and all you get is music. Then you have to find someplace to get all the sports you may want, then your news, and talk, ect., ect., ect. Satellite offers a all in one package for one low price, on one device. My use of television was not a bad comparison, it was used to show why people switched to cable for content they could not get any where else. While satellite may compete with cable all the other crap such as net flex does not. Case in point most people have cable or satellite, they dont substitute it for netflex plus something else plus something else then not have cable or satellite. While they may use those other things they still have cable/satellite.

It seems as though we are getting off track here and I would like to stick to the original issue at hand but, I will do my best to comment.

Originally Posted by john163888

think about nabster, it charges 12.95 a month for downloads, and all you get is music. Then you have to find someplace to get all the sports you may want, then your news, and talk, ect., ect., ect.

IF you want sports, news, and talk via radio. Not everyone cares about that stuff or, if they do, they get it by other means such as a news web app, newspaper, or television. I like talk radio but, I get zero sports or news via radio. News and live sports content is not exclusive to radio.

Side Note: Slacker offers news via their service. I believe their deal is with ABC news.

Almost everytime someone comes out and says why dont they do this or that on the interent. I explain to them:

"THE COST, IT IS BECAUSE OF THE COST, YOU DUMB TWIT. My god, one only needs to look at the trouble Pandora and other internet radio companies have been having to know that. Hell they have said it themselves, that they cant stay in business if royalties go up any more." Now it has been a while since the last time I said it, but its not like things have really gotten any better for them since then.

Really who in there right mind would think Mel would not do everthing he could if he thought the profit was there to do it.

Almost everytime someone comes out and says why dont they do this or that on the interent. I explain to them:

Who said that? This is like a whole new conversation.

Originally Posted by john163888

My god, one only needs to look at the trouble Pandora and other internet radio companies have been having to know that. Hell they have said it themselves, that they cant stay in business if royalties go up any more."

Pandora did say that they couldn't stay in business if royalties went up and because of that, they got a sweetheart royalty deal. The RIAA knows that keeping Pandora alive is more lucrative than forcing them into failure. Hence they structured a perfect balance deal. From what I understand, artists are quite happy with the royalty checks they are receiving because of Pandora plays.

I can't speak for the other companies because I dont follow them (because they arent as public with their finances/deals) but, I assume their biggest problem is Pandora's growth and stranglehold on the internet radio market.

Originally Posted by john163888

Now it has been a while since the last time I said it, but its not like things have really gotten any better for them since then.

Things have gotten much better for Pandora since their restructured deal...enough for them to become profitable. They have more growth, more reach, more money, and are talking about an IPO. Just last year people where talking about Pandora going the way of the dodo bird and yet here they are still standing.

As far as I am concerned they are such a front runner in the internet radio game that you can just forget about all their competition. Which is strange because I think there are better products out there.

TSL Charles = Time Spent Listening

Really who in there right mind would think Mel would not do everthing he could if he thought the profit was there to do it. Just for example, out of the top 10 services, seven lost TSL in the latest survey. Pandora and Clear Channel lost the most TSL, 11% each. Citadel, Radio One, and AccuRadio gained TSL

A service that creates personalized radio for each user ought to have high TSL you twit. Consequently, the service should be able to rapidly grow users and see no decrease in TSL, especially given that its TSL is much smaller than the streams of broadcast groups. This is due to the growth of mobile which you are totally missing. Mobile user are the fastest segment of Pandora’s user base. Using logic and common sense. it stands to reason that TSL would decline as the proportion of mobile users increases. Now while I will say that Pandora’s TSL was already declining before mobile users were counted, it doesn’t preclude mobile having a negative impact.

So, let me explain it for you again. If mobile users spend less time with Pandora than computer-bound users, then the service’s TSL should continue to decline as smartphone penetration increases. That will become problematic for a service selling advertising. Ho, that's right, they sell ads, dont they. Right now with everone focused on Pandora’s rapid growth, the continuing decline in TSL hasn’t gotten to much attention.

I will just say that new well-marketed stations have always enjoyed a honeymoon period during which rapid growth concealed fundamental flaws. Over time the flaws invariably caught up with the station. I suspect this is one rule that the Internet will not disprove.

I just dont get involved in debates I may lose. Others think I have a fat head because I think I am always right. What they dont understand is I am right most of the time BUT ONLY THE THINGS I DECIDE TO DEBATE ON. Thats why you dont see me lose to many debates, I dont get involved in subjects I dont know well

Really who in there right mind would think Mel would not do everthing he could if he thought the profit was there to do it.

Who is arguing this?

Originally Posted by john163888

A service that creates personalized radio for each user ought to have high TSL you twit. Consequently, the service should be able to rapidly grow users and see no decrease in TSL, especially given that its TSL is much smaller than the streams of broadcast groups.

What does this have to do with anything in your original point? Its really hard for me to follow. This thread should be broken up into three different topics at this point.

Originally Posted by john163888

So, let me explain it for you again. If mobile users spend less time with Pandora than computer-bound users, then the serviceís TSL should continue to decline as smartphone penetration increases. That will become problematic for a service selling advertising. Ho, that's right, they sell ads, dont they. Right now with everone focused on Pandoraís rapid growth, the continuing decline in TSL hasnít gotten to much attention.

I guess we will have to wait and see how it plays out. A drop in TSL accompanied by a drop in users would concern me but a drop in TSL during this kind of growth does not. Just my personal opinion.

Mobile users could be the same computer bound users using mobile in a supplemental fashion. In other words, I listen at my computer 8 hours per day but maybe tune in using a mobile device only 1 hour per day.

Originally Posted by john163888

I will just say that new well-marketed stations have always enjoyed a honeymoon period during which rapid growth concealed fundamental flaws. Over time the flaws invariably caught up with the station. I suspect this is one rule that the Internet will not disprove.

Couldn't you make the same argument for satellite? Can we talk about Sirius XM's flaws? That would be a good new topic of discussion.

Side thought: Will Sirius XM even use satellites in 20 years? If not, what separates them from other internet radio? Content. Content is just a matter of having cash to buy it.

Content is what separates Netflix from Amazon. It is my opinion that Amazon, with its cash, could put out a competing product and crush Netflix at any moment. Something to think about.

If Howard and 3 other big named DJ's on Sirius XM coordinated a change to another service, Sirius XM would be in big trouble.

Originally Posted by john163888

I just dont get involved in debates I may lose. Others think I have a fat head because I think I am always right. What they dont understand is I am right most of the time BUT ONLY THE THINGS I DECIDE TO DEBATE ON. Thats why you dont see me lose to many debates, I dont get involved in subjects I dont know well

This is a forum, I'm just sharing my thoughts.

No one here is "winning" or "losing" anything. No one is keeping score. There are no prizes.

If you feel like you have "won" something, I am happy for you.

The reality is, I am invested in SIRI and listen to it every day... not Pandora. So, what does you winning mean? That Sirius XM is better? OK, you win. But, I am already invested so, did I lose OR do I win too?